Search

Serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations undermine the quality of research and trust in science. When researchers engage in these behaviors, institutional officials (IOs) often develop corrective action plans. Ideally, such plans address the root causes so noncompliance or research integrity violations discontinue. The aim of this study was to identify what IOs perceive as causes and action plan activities typically prescribed. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 47 IOs at research institutions across the U.S. including: institutional review board and institutional animal care and use committee chairs and directors, chief research officers, research compliance and integrity officers, and institutional conflicts of interest chairs and directors. The most common root causes identified were: 1) lack of knowledge or training, 2) failure to provide research team supervision, and 3) researcher attitudes toward compliance. The most common action plan activities include: 1) retraining in compliance or research integrity, 2) follow-up and hands-on involvement with the researcher, and 3) mandated oversight or mentoring. Because the most commonly identified action plan activities fail to adequately address the majority of root causes, our findings suggest a need for IOs to rethink existing approaches to action plan development to more effectively target root causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and the staff who support them were largely in‐person during the 2021‐2022 school year, despite their continued vulnerability to infection with SARS‐CoV‐2. This qualitative study aimed to understand continued perceptions of weekly SARS‐CoV‐2 screening testing of students and staff amidst increased availability of vaccinations. METHODS: Twenty‐three focus groups were held with school staff and parents of children with IDD to examine the perceptions of COVID‐19 during the 2021‐2022 school year. Responses were analyzed using a directed thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: Four principal themes were identified: strengths and opportunities of school‐ and district‐level mitigation policies; experience at school with the return to in‐person learning; facilitators and barriers to participation in SARS‐CoV‐2 screening testing; and perceptions of SARS‐CoV‐2 testing in light of vaccine availability. IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH POLICY, PRACTICE, AND EQUITY: Despite the increased availability of vaccines, school staff and families agreed that saliva‐based SARS‐CoV‐2 screening testing helped increase comfort with in‐person learning as long as the virus was present in the community. CONCLUSION: To keep children with IDD in school during the pandemic, families found SARS‐CoV‐2 screening testing important. Clearly communicating school policies and mitigation strategies facilitated peace of mind and confidence in the school district. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race‐ or ethnicity‐based. Race‐based or race‐targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race‐based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro‐Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race‐based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder‐engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race‐targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race‐targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rural residents in underserved areas face many barriers to health services, including colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but rural healthcare providers may assist patients navigating these challenges due to familiarity with local contexts. In 2017 to 2018, we interviewed clinical practitioners and staff (n = 40) at 13 primary care and gastroenterology locations across rural Southern Illinois. We used a semi-structured interview guide that addressed system, provider, and patient levels including domains related to barriers, facilitators, and needs for intervention. This article focuses on 3 main elements related to distance and transportation that emerged from inductive coding. First, providers described long distance travel for care as normalized but not necessarily preferable. Second, they identified and described distance-related challenges specific to CRC screening, and third, providers discussed strategies, mostly related to transportation, they use to navigate those challenges. Finally, they suggested a variety of broader solutions to reduce distance and transportation barriers to screening. Overall, distance to care remains a challenge to increasing CRC screening and contributes to disparities in rural communities. To increase early detection and reduce rural cancer disparities, efforts to increase screening and follow-up must address ways to help patients and providers navigate this distance within their local communities and contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: After traumatic brachial plexus injuries (BPI), the sudden loss of physical function is often accompanied by psychological distress. Given the complex nature and relative infrequency of the injury, BPI patients will often use online resources for information about their injury as well as emotional support. Questions/Purpose: Recognizing the influence of social media, we sought to search a popular social media platform to identify challenges faced by BPI patients and strategies used to overcome these challenges. Methods: We searched "traumatic brachial plexus injury" on Facebook and selected the 2 most popular BPI support groups. We collected posts regarding traumatic BPI from November 1, 2018 through November 1, 2019. We performed inductive and deductive thematic analysis of the posts to identify recurring topics, knowledge gaps, and peer interaction dynamics. Results: We analyzed 7694 posts from the 2 Facebook support groups. The following themes emerged: (1) BPI patients express discontent regarding the inability to use their arm and the slow or stagnant pace of recovery; (2) BPI patients are frustrated over their inability to retain their preinjury livelihood; and (3) BPI patients emphasize that acceptance and moving on are key components of adjustment to their condition. Some patients described the role of limb amputation in achieving these goals. Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates the areas in which BPI patients are in need of emotional support. Adjustment to BPI might be facilitated through multidisciplinary care that addresses emotional aspects of recovery and emphasizes self-management skills, in addition to the traditional focus on physical function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is variability in treatment strategies for patients with brachial plexus injury (BPI). We used qualitative research methods to better understand surgeons' rationale for treatment approaches. We hypothesized that distal nerve transfers would be preferred over exploration and nerve grafting of the brachial plexus. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with BPI surgeons to discuss 3 case vignettes: pan-plexus injury, upper trunk injury, and lower trunk injury. The interview guide included questions regarding overall treatment strategy, indications and utility of brachial plexus exploration, and the role of nerve grafting and/or nerve transfers. Interview transcripts were coded by 2 researchers. We performed inductive thematic analysis to collate these codes into themes, focusing on the role of brachial plexus exploration in the treatment of BPI. Results: Most surgeons routinely explore the supraclavicular brachial plexus in situations of pan-plexus and upper trunk injuries. Reasons to explore included the importance of obtaining a definitive root level diagnosis, perceived availability of donor nerve roots, timing of anticipated recovery, plans for distal reconstruction, and the potential for neurolysis. Very few explore lower trunk injuries, citing concern with technical difficulty and unfavorable risk-benefit profile. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that supraclavicular exploration remains a foundational component of surgical management of BPI, despite increasing utilization of distal nerve transfers. Availability of abundant donor axons and establishing an accurate diagnosis were cited as primary reasons in support of exploration. This analysis of surgeon interviews characterizes contemporary practices regarding the role of brachial plexus exploration in the treatment of BPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: After periods of remote and/or hybrid learning as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic, the return to in-person learning has been beneficial for both students and teachers, but it has not been without challenges. This study was designed to assess the impact of the return to in-person learning on the school experience, and efforts made to ease the transition in furthering a positive in-person learning environment., Materials and Methods: We conducted a series of listening sessions with 4 stakeholder groups: students ( n = 39), parents ( n = 28), teachers/school staff ( n = 41), and a combination of listening sessions and semi-structured interviews with building level and district administrators ( n = 12), focusing on in-school experiences during the 2021-2022 school year amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. A primarily deductive qualitative analysis approach was employed to code the data followed by a primarily inductive thematic analysis, followed by thematic aggregation, thus providing depth and identification of nuances in the data., Results: Three main themes emerged around school staff experiences: (1) increased levels of stress and anxiety manifested in key ways, including students' challenges with personal behavior management contributing to increased aggression and staff shortages; (2) school staff described key contributors to stress and anxiety, including feeling excluded from decision making and challenges with clear and consistent communication; and (3) school staff described key facilitators that supported their management of anxiety and stress, including adaptability, heightened attention and resources to wellbeing, and leveraging interpersonal relationships., Discussion: School staff and students faced significant stress and anxiety during the 2021-2022 school year. Further exploration and identification of approaches to mitigate key contributors to increased stress and anxiety for school staff, along with increased opportunities for implementing key facilitators that were identified as important in managing and navigating the increased stress and anxiety offer valuable opportunities for helping to create a supportive work environment for school staff in the future., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Rolf, Vestal, Moore, Lobb Dougherty, Mueller and Newland.)

Aims: Brachial plexus injury (BPI) is an often devastating injury that affects patients physically and emotionally. The vast majority of the published literature is based on surgeon-graded assessment of motor outcomes, but the patient experience after BPI is not well understood. Our aim was to better understand overall life satisfaction after BPI, with the goal of identifying areas that can be addressed in future delivery of care., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 BPI patients after initial nerve reconstruction. The interview guide was focused on the patient's experience after BPI, beginning with the injury itself and extending beyond surgical reconstruction. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used according to standard qualitative methodology to better understand overall life satisfaction after BPI, contributors to life satisfaction, and opportunities for improvement., Results: Among the 15 patients interviewed, the following themes emerged: 1) happiness and life satisfaction were noted despite limitations in physical function; 2) quality of social support influences life satisfaction during recovery from BPI; and 3) social participation and having a sense of purpose impact life satisfaction during recovery from BPI., Conclusion: How patients perceive their BPI treatment and recovery varies widely, and is not directly linked to their self-reported functional outcome. Patients with stronger social circles and activities that give them a sense of fulfillment were more likely to be satisfied with their current status. Evaluating a patient's social network, goals, and potential supportive adaptations early in the treatment timeline through coordinated multidisciplinary care may improve overall satisfaction during recovery from BPI.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;2(1):9-15., Competing Interests: ICMJE COI statement: C. J. Dy and A. S. James report an institutional grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23AR073928), of the United States National Institutes of Health related to this article., (© 2021 Author(s) et al.)